• ampersandrew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Any game that doesn’t last forever was robbed of doing so arbitrarily. If they never updated Palworld again, in its current form, it will last forever.

    • Dark ArcA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s not really true… No closed source software that isn’t actively developed should be expected to last forever. Eventually the binaries will get to the point where nothing will run them.

      You also can’t emulate Windows. Maybe you could virtualize Linux and use wine, but even that is a tall order for “forever”.

      • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        You can emulate machines that can run Windows, and that’s very effective at preservation. Wine is already better than modern Windows at running software that relies on deprecated dependencies. But live service is just purposely killing games that didn’t need to die.

        • Dark ArcA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          You can emulate machines that can run Windows, and that’s very effective at preservation.

          Hmm… I’m unaware of this, but I guess it’s theoretically possible. Still it’s a lot harder to emulate x86 + some graphics hardware than it is to emulate a Gameboy.

          Wine is already better than modern Windows at running software that relies on deprecated dependencies.

          Agreed, but it’s not a silver bullet and A LOT of stuff is going to be shaken up now that x86 is starting to be challenged. For a long time PCs have been entirely operating on x86 (which is arguably part of why Java died … the abstraction just wasn’t necessary). That x86 dominance I think may have given a false sense of security for software longevity.

          It’s not even that it’s hard to port the games, but without the source code, it’s just not going to happen.

          I kind of wish there were laws where source code had to be released after X years of inactivity, especially for games for the cultural preservation aspect. Like if you have abandoned a game and not released any new content (especially if you haven’t released even any bug fixes/have totally abandoned the game), after 10 years the game code must be released.

          I don’t necessarily think it needs to be a release of rights, assets, or anything like that … but being unable to operate a game you’ve bought just because it was built for an older piece of hardware is 👎.

          But live service is just purposely killing games that didn’t need to die.

          Bad live services are killing (in many cases bad) games that didn’t need to die (and might have been better if less time was spent trying to force something to be a live service that didn’t need to be one).

          There’s a big difference between Suicide Squad Kill The Justice League and say… PUBG, Fortnite, Hunt Showdown, WOW, RuneScape, etc

          • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            The inevitable outcome for every live service game is that it becomes inoperable and unplayable, even the good ones. It doesn’t matter if it’s Suicide Squad or Fortnite. They all should still be preserved. Open source is appreciated but not necessary.

            • Dark ArcA
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              I don’t think Fortnite can be meaningfully preserved anymore than say, Cedar Point can personally.

              Live services can also certainly transition out of a live service state; or if the source code is disclosed (per my previous statement) they can be transitioned by the community after they seize operation. Building a game like Fortnite or RuneScape just doesn’t work without it being a centralized “destination.” The experience is about the large number of players as much as it’s about the game play.

              Live services are more of a destination than a product … and for match made competitive shooters and things of that ilk … I think that’s fine.

              • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                If someone 50 years from now wants to see what this game Fortnite was all about, they should be able to get a reasonable approximation of it by booting it up and playing with 100 other people. That’s what it means to preserve it. We’ve had and will continue to have competitive games that are not live service.

                • Dark ArcA
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  We’ve had and will continue to have competitive games that are not live service.

                  Interesting question… What competitive games from the last 10 years would you consider to be not live service games?

                  • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I’m way into fighting games. Even the ones with a battle pass and such can still be played offline (except maybe for 2XKO and Brawlhalla) and quite frankly can’t match the content churn that other genres do in the live service space.